On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 10:04:28 PM UTC+5:30 Oscar wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 at 19:26, Matthias Köppe <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hi Aaron, > > > > On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 5:17:22 AM UTC-7 [email protected] wrote: > >> > >> On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 7:44 PM Matthias Köppe <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > We are in the early stages of planning an online SageDays event ( > https://wiki.sagemath.org/days112.358). Wondering if some SymPy > developers would be interested in presenting? I think there's a lot of > potential for synergy between the projects. > >> > >> What sort of presentation would you like to see from SymPy? > > > > I'd be interested in: > > I would be interested in coming along and can present on at least some > of these things. > > > - General overview of recent-ish features of SymPy > > - status and plans regarding use of FLINT - the Sage interface to it > misses many of the more recent developments in the FLINT 2.x series ( > https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/31408), so there's a potential for > synergy here > > It would definitely be good to work together on this if possible. Does > SAGE use its own bindings for flint? I've been working a little on > python_flint e.g.: > https://github.com/fredrik-johansson/python-flint/pull/20 > > The python_flint bindings still miss a lot of the newer features from > flint, arb etc. A primary goal though is just to make it more easily > installable. > > > - status and plans regarding SymEngine > > I don't know about the status of SymEngine. I can't say that I can see > any significant work happening on the SymPy side to integrate > SymEngine any further with SymPy. My personal view is that for faster > symbolics a different approach is needed in general but SymEngine > seems to have the same design flaws as SymPy itself in that respect. Hi, as someone who is relatively new to the SymPy + SymEngine project, and wants to work on SymEngine as a part of their GSoC, I would appreciate it if you could elaborate a bit on what design flaws you are referring to. I have been going through the SymEngine repository, and the main thing that sticks out to me is the lack of useful documentation. For example, what exactly is ATan2's is_canonical() <https://symengine.org/symengine/classSymEngine_1_1ATan2.html#a70edcb86917de5053687e686738c555d> function supposed to do, and why? From a cursory glance at the code, we know that the code deems something in a non-canonical form if the numerator is equal to the denominator, but why? Moreover, the design principles page <https://symengine.org/design/design.html> says that the repository uses the visitor and double dispatch design pattern, but how exactly, and to do what? >From my perspective, it looks like we can do a lot to make SymEngine more beginner-friendly. I had a much easier time starting with SymPy than I did with SymEngine. > > > > - status and plans regarding solveset for several variables > > There are no immediate plans for a solveset for several variables > beyond nonlinsolve. There was recent discussion about this on the > mailing list here though: > https://groups.google.com/g/sympy/c/v_YLkX4QuRY > > > - status and plans regarding the assumptions facility > > I think much like solveset etc there needs to be more organisation > among sympy developers to define what the plans for things like this > should be going forwards. These are the kinds of things that GSOC > should really be used for rather than adding peripheral features. We > need to make that clearer to GSOC applicants though. > > -- > Oscar > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/68fd8363-6370-425d-844f-d958a8488068n%40googlegroups.com.
